What to turn in

Video and Notebook

Your final project will require that you turn in a video presentation (8-10 minutes) that goes through the project and explains what you did and how you did it. In addition, you will be asked to turn in a Jupyter notebook (or equivalent code/documentation for other languages and tools) that goes into the details of your analysis and reusults.

When you and your group are ready to turn in your work, create a directory that has all your work (video, analysis, notebooks, code, data, etc.). Make sure that your code can run in that directory (especially if you are using data). Compress (e.g., zip) the directory and turn it in using this Dropbox file request.

Let me know ASAP if you run into file size issues.

Evaluation of Your Own Work

In addition, I am requesting that each student submit a short paragraph that evaluates their contributions and the contributions of others on the project. For students who are completing projects alone, I ask that you submit an evaluation of your own work. You can turn this in using the same Dropbox file request.

Grading Procedure

Your grade will be composed of three parts: (1) a review of your work by me (60% of your grade), a review by your peers (30%), and a review of your feedback by me (10%). We will all use the same rubric and have access to the same materials. I will upload your project materials to shared Google Drive (or similar) and send out the requests for review. You are likely to review 3-4 other groups.

For the reviews of your work, we will all use the same rubric (see below). I will grade every project myself, which composes the major fraction of your final project grade. For the peer review, I will collect your feedback for other students via Qualitrics form. I will average your scores on the review by your peers to obtain your grade on that part. In addition, I will review that you completed all review requests in a timely and appropriate manner. If you do so, you will receive full credit on that part. If you do not, I will deduct points for that part.

Grading Rubric

The rubric consists of six parts, each with its own weight. Grades will be assigned on a 4.0 scale for each part of the rubric, added together according to their weight, and then will be converted to a 100 point scale. In addition, each group will be given some overall feedback from myself and the peer review. Below appears the rubric along with a description of what we are looking for in each category.

Stating the Problem (10%)

  • Exceeds Expectations (4.0) - States problem with compelling discussion of importance, interest, and background.
  • Meets Expectations (3.5) - States problem with adequate discussion of importance, interest, and background.
  • Nearing Expectations (3.0) - States problem with minimal discussion of importance, interest.
  • Does Not Meet Expectations (2.0) - States problem with no additional discussion.
  • Missing (0.0) - Absent, no evidence

Explaining the Relevant Theory/Model/Approach (25%)

  • Exceeds Expectations (4.0) - Clearly and concisely explains the theory/model/approach that is being investigated and how it relates to the physics. Describes assumptions and approximations that are being made.
  • Meets Expectations (3.5) - Clearly and concisely explains the theory/model/approach that is being investigated. Describes assumptions and approximations that are being made.
  • Nearing Expectations (3.0) - Clearly and concisely explains the models that is being investigated in this poster.
  • Does Not Meet Expectations (2.0) - Explains what the symbols in the model mean
  • Missing (0.0) - Absent, no evidence

Performing the Appropriate Calculations/Derivations/Analysis (25%)

  • Exceeds Expectations (4.0) - Clearly explains the analysis being done in a way that can be not only followed but reporoduced easily.
  • Meets Expectations (3.5) - Clearly explains the analysis being done in a way that can be followed easily.
  • Nearing Expectations (3.0) - Explains the analysis being done, but hard to follow, unclear, or otherwise missing aspects.
  • Does Not Meet Expectations (2.0) - Conducts analysis.
  • Missing (0.0) - Absent, no evidence

Presenting your Results (20%)

  • Exceeds Expectations (4.0) - Clearly presents figures that demonstrate the results of the analytical and computational modeling conducted. Describes the figure in a concise way and relates it to the underlying physics.
  • Meets Expectations (3.5) - Clearly presents figures that demonstrate the results of the analytical and computational modeling conducted. Describes the figure in a concise way.
  • Nearing Expectations (3.0) - Figures are presented that result from the modeling and are described in a concise way.
  • Does Not Meet Expectations (2.0) - There are figures resulting from the calculations.
  • Missing (0.0) - Absent, no evidence

Discussing your Findings, Conclusions, and Implications (10%)

  • Exceeds Expectations (4.0) - The discussion describes the results in the context of the theory/model and the physics. Limitations and signficances of the work are discussed. Future directions are described that follow from the work that has been completed.
  • Meets Expectations (3.5) - The discussion describes the results in the context of the theory/model and the physics. Limitations and signficances of the work are discussed.
  • Nearing Expectations (3.0) - The discussion describes the results in the context of the theory/model and the physics.
  • Does Not Meet Expectations (2.0) - There is a discussion of the results.
  • Missing (0.0) - Absent, no evidence

Including Appropriate References/Resources (10%)

  • Exceeds Expectations (4.0) - All cited works, both text and visual, are done in the correct format with no errors. Includes more than 5 major references (e.g. science journal articles, books, but no more than two internet sites.)
  • Meets Expectations (3.5) - Some cited works, both text and visual, are done in the correct format. Inconsistencies evident. Includes 5 major references (e.g. science journal articles, books, but no more than two internet sites.)
  • Nearing Expectations (3.0) - Few cited works, both text and visual, are done in the correct format. Includes 4 major references (e.g. science journal articles, books, but no more than two internet sites.)
  • Does Not Meet Expectations (2.0) - Includes 3 major references (e.g. science journal articles, books, but no more than two internet sites.)
  • Missing (0.0) - Absent or the only references are internet sites.